The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1887-10-04
THE DAY IN COURT.
A Big Days Blu siness Before
Judge Zane.
RODNEY BADGER CONVICTED.
Thomas C. GriRgs and James Lawson
Acquitted-TheC Cases Ignored by
the Grand Jury.

charged with unlawful cOhabltatiOn,
was begun in the Third District Court
yesterday morning. A jury was called,
and I. E. Harper and ". S. Clays were
challenged by the defense and excused
Their places being filed, the jury was
accepted by both sides and sworn.
MRS. LOUISE ASHLEY BADGER
was the first witness called. At the
request OF Mr.. Rawl1ns, the Court in
sJructed her that she would not be re-
quired to answer any questions that
might criminate herself.
The witness then testified that her
name was Louise Badger; her maiden
name was Noble, but her stepfather's
name was Ashby, ana she took his
name; was married to Rodney G. Bad.
ger in the Endowment House in Salt
Lake City in 1875, had SIX children, the
youngest being mouths aud the
Oldest s years old; defendant had a
wife living when he married her; her
name was Harriet Ann Badger; she
lived in Salt Lake City; supposed that
the defendant lived with her. Witness
during the past two years defendant
had not visited her at her house; had
not seen him at Harriet's house during
the past two years; had occupied the
same bad with defendant during the
past year and half at Holden, Willard
County; was living there during 1856
went there to keep her husband out of
the Penitentiary; left this city in April,
1885, and remained away until May.
1887; on returning to the city was met
by defendant at the depot; found a
house furnished and supposed defend
ant furnished it; was still recognized by
him as his wife.
Mr.. Rawlins objected TO the introduce
ton of testimony upon what had trans
pired subsequent to the dates named in
the indictment and he als) objected to
testimony showing cohabitation out of
this district.
Mr.. Clark replied that if it could be
shown that the defendant held a plural
wife out as his wife, by acknowledging
they might not reside in the same dis
trict, he could commit the Offense of
unlawful cohabitation.
The court held that if a man CO.
hsbited with more than one wife
though they were not in the same ais
trict, he could be prosecuted in either.
The witness continued that defendant
visited her three or four times while she
| lived at Holden, and wrote to her per-
| baps once a week, and sent money for
her support; the letters we're destroyed ;
last saw defendant at Harriet house
on the occasion of the funeral of his
child; had not seen him there for q
long time prior to that.
The witness was overcome with emo
ton at this point, and was excused.
This was all the testimony offer I'd.
The court instructed the jury to
the effect that if they found
from the evidence that the defendant
had associated with both " ives, as such,
between the dates named in the indict-
ment. they should fad him guilty, al
though he lived with but one wife IN the
district were the trial was held.
The defense excepted to the court
refusal to give the following instruction
to the jury:
"If the jury find from the evidence
that. during the time named in the in
dtctment, the defendant had q lawful
wife, Harriet A. Badger, with whom he
lived IN this judicial district, and that
the only associ ton of cohabitatlon with
the Louise Ash0y named in the indict-
ment took place out of this district, and
in the Second Judicial District of this
Territory, then the jury should acquit
the defendant"
The Jury returned verdict of guilty
and sentence was set for Tuesday, OctO'
Der 18th, at pm.
The case will be appealed to the Su-
preme Court.
The next trial was that of
THE UNITED STATES VS.. THOMAS c. GRIGGs
charged with unlawful cohabitation
A jury was called, accepted snd
sworn.
The indictment charging NJ. Grigg.
with unlawful cohabitation between
January LIST. 1885, and May 18th, 1887
with Janet Griggs and Mary Ann Price
was read.
a physicians certificate, showing that
Janet Griggs, the first wife. was TOO il
to appear, was presented by the defense
MRS. LIZZIE HORNE
was the first witness. She testified tina
her maiden name was Price; wa
sister to Mary Ann Price, who
! was married to defendant; be-
! lieved Mary Ann was his SECOND
wife; Janet Griggs was his first wife
she was living; Mary Ann had beer
married to defendant about ten years
witness lived in the Fourteenth Ward
did not know where Mary Ann lived
! last saw her about two weeks befort
Mr.. Grigg's arrest; did not know wher
she was living during the years 1885 ant
1886 and until May 1887; Mary All
Il lived in the Fifteenth Ward about foul
= years ago, but did not know where SD
. lived after that. Witness lived in III
Fourteenth Ward during 1884, 1885 an,
I 1886, but did not see Mary Ann fre
It quently during that time; was on goo
J terms with her; Mary Ann had on
d child living; he was over
: years old; one child had died
, supposed she was known as Mrs
T Griggs; defendant sometimes called q
= her house, but never brought things TO
|. her sister; did not know where he
y sister was living at present; did
y not know whether she was alive o
- dead; last saw her at her father house
'e did not think it strange that she shout
e disappear for six months and nothing
" be heard of her such things were com
70 mon now; when Mary Ann left, sh
"a left her 5-year old boy with her mother
rs do not know that any member of til